Claim of Rights Violation Of Hasidic Jews Is Rejected

By JACQUES STEINBERG,

Published: December 15, 1993

WHITE PLAINS, Dec. 14—
A Federal judge ruled today that a Rockland County village had not violated the housing rights of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews by trying to place zoning restrictions on the establishment of small synagogues in private homes.

In dismissing a Justice Department civil lawsuit against the village of Airmont, Judge Gerard L. Goettel of Federal District Court rejected the Government's claim that the village had discriminated against Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, and infringed on their ability to worship, by opposing the efforts of some to create synagogues within their houses.

Rebuffing a companion lawsuit that had been filed by four Orthodox Jews and their synagogue, Judge Goettel today also refused their request that he dissolve the village or order its zoning code amended to ease the establishment of home synagogues.

The rulings represented a bitter defeat to those Orthodox and Hasidic Jews who had contended that Airmont -- a municipality of about 8,000 that was incorporated as a separate village within the town of Ramapo in 1991 -- had been formed explicitly to keep them out. Nearly a quarter of Ramapo's 94,000 residents are believed to be Orthodox or Hasidic. Jury Verdict a 'Compromise'

The dispute has drawn a spotlight to the tensions which have often been created as Orthodox Jews have departed New York City for its suburbs.

Some Orthodox Jews in Airmont contend that home synagogues, which sometimes cater to as many as 40 congregants, are necessary in remote neighborhoods because Jewish law prevents them from traveling by car on the Sabbath, even to attend religious services. But some current and former officials of Airmont have argued that home synagogues detract from the residential character of the village by creating extensive foot traffic and other disruptive activity.

The court decisions came one day after a Federal jury found, in the companion lawsuit by the four Orthodox Jews, that the village had indeed violated the Constitutional and fair housing rights of the plaintiffs, whose efforts to create a home synagogue had been bitterly opposed by the village's founders. But in a verdict that Judge Goettel disdainfully referred to as a "compromise," the jury had awarded no damages to the plaintiffs and had also found that no village officials had violated the plaintiffs' Constitutional or housing rights.

The lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs and the Government were tried simultaneously over the last eight weeks in Judge Goettel's courtroom in Federal District Court here.

While he chose not to set aside those parts of the jury's verdict that were contradictory to his own, Judge Goettel ruled that neither the plaintiffs nor the Government had persuaded him to take action against the village. The judge left open the possibility that he would invalidate the jury's verdict if ordered by a higher court to impose some form of relief. Larry L. Crain, a lawyer who had represented the plaintiffs, said today that he intended to appeal to the United States Court of of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan. Mayor Sees Victory

Rabbi Yitzchok LeBlanc-Sternberg, who had filed the suit against the village and its founders because of repeated attempts to ban his home synagogue, said he was "obviously disappointed" that the judge had taken no action against Airmont in response to the jury's finding. He said he was confident that the appellate court would be more sympathetic.

Ralph J. Bracco, who was elected Mayor of Airmont in March, said he hoped the judge's verdict would put to rest the perception that Airmont is an anti-Semitic community.

"Come visit," Mayor Bracco said. "You'll see all different kinds of people, all happy people."

In siding with the village, Judge Goettel seemed to accept its lawyers' arguments that it had not acted to impose an outright ban on the construction of home synagogues, but had sought only to subject applications for houses of worship to certain zoning restrictions. The zoning changes were formally adopted last January and limited home synagogues to lots of specified dimensions in certain parts of the village. The plaintiffs had contended that those restrictions made the construction of synagogues all but impossible.

But the judge disagreed, pointing out that village officials had ultimately dropped their opposition to Rabbi LeBlanc-Sternberg's application and had allowed a number of informal home synagogues to be established in Airmont, without pressure to apply for proper zoning. The plaintiffs contended that the village officials, some of whom had hotly opposed home synagogues of any kind, had temporarily tempered their views in response to the lawsuits.